Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning

[annajdonaldson]

Here’s my two cents on the difference, hoping that this slightly different explanation may help:

Although both NFP and contraception are means by which a couple could avoid conceiving a child, they are dramatically different because NFP acts in concert with God’s plan for a couple’s fertility. God’s design of men and women includes the idea that spouses will have sex sometimes when the women are fertile and sometimes when they are not–NFP merely aids the couple in decided when to have sex. Conversely, God’s design of men and women does not include a woman’s cycles being shut down (as in hormonal birth control methods), a barrier stopping the seminal fluid (as with a condom), or the destruction of the male or female’s anatomy (as in surgical sterilization). As our local bishop, Bishop James Conley, stated in a recent pastoral letter, NFP “challenges couples to discern prayerfully when to engage in life-giving sexual acts,” versus contraception, which takes those life-giving sexual acts and sterilizes them.

Best wishes for navigating this issue in your life.

Yes, thank you! This is a very simple and succinct way of explaining it.

 

[Rau]

There is a question that I also have. The local college here costs $60,000 per year including the fees and required room and board. With 5 children that would amount to $300,000 per year. If the husband works at MacDonald’s or Wal mart with a before tax salary of $20 or $30 thousand dollars, and of course, from that they take out at least $5 or $10 thousand for various required fees like social security, Obamacare, and many other dues. How is a family with 5 children supposed to afford sending their children to college or even Catholic high schools. The local Catholic high school is $10 thousand per year, and there are a lot more fees piled onto that. And you cannot use contraception because that is a mortal sin. So, should this family just continue to have more children? It doesn’t seem reasonable.

If the parents truly believe these costs are the right choice for their family, then it would seem to be irresponsible to seek to have more children. It would seem counter to the exhortation to “responsible parenthood”. However, that does get you to a clearance to use contraception. A good intention is not a justification to commit an evil act.

 

[UbiCaritas]

There is a question that I also have. The local college here costs $60,000 per year including the fees and required room and board. With 5 children that would amount to $300,000 per year. If the husband works at MacDonald’s or Wal mart with a before tax salary of $20 or $30 thousand dollars, and of course, from that they take out at least $5 or $10 thousand for various required fees like social security, Obamacare, and many other dues. How is a family with 5 children supposed to afford sending their children to college or even Catholic high schools. The local Catholic high school is $10 thousand per year, and there are a lot more fees piled onto that. And you cannot use contraception because that is a mortal sin. So, should this family just continue to have more children? It doesn’t seem reasonable.

Options in that case would include:

a) using NFP;
b) using NFP in conjunction with getting a work transfer to, say, Florida or Texas, where in-state tuition is very low (seriously, 60K for a state school but full-time salary is 20-30K per year? Where the heck is this?!). In-state Texas tuition at a 4-year school ranges from about 5K/year to 16K/year. And believe me, this state is not hurting for job availability in the customer service sector. Florida has comparably low tuition, too. I’m sure those aren’t the only two states with such low tuition. Lest this sound crazy, I have family members–one group with a lot of kids, the other a single college-age person with no family financial support for school–move to states with cheaper state tuition either in part or entirely because of that opportunity.
c) all of the above, plus using community college for the first two years. I guarantee you that any kid who is one of five and whose parents are making 20-30K per year would get enough grants to go to CC for free for the first two years. After that, they’d still be eligible for the grants they got for CC, plus additional scholarships and grants from the university.
d) b and c, except not using NFP if they feel so called.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Reading in this thread answered the question I had posted in another thread on this. I understand now. Fake contraception is an evil because it deliberately sterilizes the marital act. But natural family planning is not wrong, because it is using the natural ways, and that God designed women to be most often infertile. I didn’t know we were most often infertile. It depends, though. Now it makes sense to me. Why does fake contraception seem to be preferred over natural, however? Is it that the fake is more reliable than natural, or are they about the same? I don’t even know.

 

[Rau]

Reading in this thread answered the question I had posted in another thread on this. I understand now. Fake contraception is an evil because it deliberately sterilizes the marital act. But natural family planning is not wrong, because it is using the natural ways, and that God designed women to be most often infertile. I didn’t know we were most often infertile. It depends, though. Now it makes sense to me. Why does fake contraception seem to be preferred over natural, however? Is it that the fake is more reliable than natural, or are they about the same? I don’t even know.

Artificial (“fake”) birth control (ie. Contraception) is attractive to many because it seems simple (a pill per day) and it enables sex any day you like. With NFP, you have to make careful bodily observations to determine your point in the cycle, and then avoid for those days where pregnancy is deemed possible.

 

[Ejperchenough]

Artificial (“fake”) birth control (ie. Contraception) is attractive to many because it seems simple (a pill per day) and it enables sex any day you like. With NFP, you have to make careful bodily observations to determine your point in the cycle, and then avoid for those days where pregnancy is deemed possible.

In other words, nfp is work, nfp is discipline.

 

[UbiCaritas]

In other words, nfp is work, nfp is discipline.

Yes–but there’s a bit more to it than that.

NFP, when practiced strictly (ie, postovulation only), typically limits sex to 7-10 days per cycle. For us (and I have a pretty standard-length cycle), than means 10 days, max, out of every 30. Which doesn’t sound so bad, except that they’re (of course) consecutive rather than interspersed with other days. Due to business trips, family commitments, etc, this can mean that we sometimes will go without having sex for a long time. DH gets back after a month-long business trip, and we had sex once in the cycle in which he left? Sorry, still have to wait 10-12 days to be together!

It really, really SUCKS sometimes, though it could be much worse: I have a friend whose hormones are both messed up and untreatable, so while she* is* ovulating, hormonal means of ovulation detection (ie, monitors and strips) don’t work, temps are hit-and-miss, her ovulation varies wildly as to day, and mucus says she’s fertile all the time. As a result, she only has a couple of days in which she’s considered “infertile,” and they fall during her period.

We won’t use ABC because it’s wrong, but to say that those who get tired of NFP are afraid of work or discipline is oversimplifying the matter. (And before anyone asks, yes, I have, per my doctor, serious reasons to avoid for a little while yet. )

ETA: It can also be very difficult sometimes to find a method that even works well for you, and once you do, it can mean quite a while abstaining before you’re comfortable enough to trust it or even have enough data to do so. Again, it’s worth it in the long run, but that can be an additional strain on a marriage that already has stress in it from whatever the factor is that’s causing the couple to avoid.

 

[sailor28]

I can maintain my weight by eating an entire pizza and then going into my bathroom and making myself vomit; or I can maintain my weight by being respectful of my bodies natural need for vitamins and nutrition and taking care of myself. (There are other options like exercise but I am using these two for comparison because they are on opposite ends of the spectrum) These two options can produce the same result of weight maintenance, but one is respectful of the way God created my body and the other is an abuse.

Monicad,

It would be wise to not use the food analogy. Catholics who struggle with obesity are free to get a gastric bypass which alters the body and the way food is digested. Obesity is complicated and there are many factors that play into it including genetic ones. Not everyone can reach a healthy weight by what you propose. Gastric Bypass surgery saves many people lives and improves the quality of their life. In a sense, it “mutilates” the body too. It does not restore normal function. It alters function. It is acceptable for a Catholic to get a gastric bypass.

Here is the definition of one:

Gastric bypass surgery refers to a surgical procedure in which the stomach is divided into a small upper pouch and a much larger lower “remnant” pouch and then the small intestine is rearranged to connect to both. Surgeons have developed several different ways to reconnect the intestine, thus leading to several different gastric bypass (GBP) procedures. Any GBP leads to a marked reduction in the functional volume of the stomach, accompanied by an altered physiological and physical response to food.

I just wanted to share that because everytime I read eating disorder analogies I think of Catholics who get gastric bypass. You are not likely to know who has done this as most people are extremely private about it.

 

[camerong]

Yes–but there’s a bit more to it than that.

NFP, when practiced strictly (ie, postovulation only), typically limits sex to 7-10 days per cycle. For us (and I have a pretty standard-length cycle), than means 10 days, max, out of every 30. Which doesn’t sound so bad, except that they’re (of course) consecutive rather than interspersed with other days. Due to business trips, family commitments, etc, this can mean that we sometimes will go without having sex for a long time. DH gets back after a month-long business trip, and we had sex once in the cycle in which he left? Sorry, still have to wait 10-12 days to be together!

I hate to be pedantic, but NFP “practiced strictly” does not mean having intercourse only after ovulation. That may be what you (and/or your counselor and/or doctor) have decided is the safest route for you given your situation and/or cycles, but the typical user can abstain only a few days a month and avoid pregnancy with a ~99% effectiveness rate. I say this only for the benefit of anyone reading who is not familiar with NFP, so they don’t get the wrong impression. Bless you for continuing to practice NFP despite the challenge it presents. Cheers.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Artificial (“fake”) birth control (ie. Contraception) is attractive to many because it seems simple (a pill per day) and it enables sex any day you like. With NFP, you have to make careful bodily observations to determine your point in the cycle, and then avoid for those days where pregnancy is deemed possible.

I have never had a “normal” cycle. One of the reasons I never married, and never plan to. My Natural Planning system would be a mess. I wouldn’t trust enough to know.

 

[Tomdstone]

I have never had a “normal” cycle. One of the reasons I never married, and never plan to. My Natural Planning system would be a mess. I wouldn’t trust enough to know.

I am sorry to hear that. It seems like you would be a wonderful mother and wife. How many deprived children there are who would want to have such a good person as a mother, especially someone who was familiar with and enjoyed delicious Italian food! Italian mothers are number one!

 

[LongingSoul]

I have never had a “normal” cycle. One of the reasons I never married, and never plan to. My Natural Planning system would be a mess. I wouldn’t trust enough to know.

Oh my goodness. I feel so terribly sad that that is the reason that you chose to not marry!!! Fundamentalist Catholicism is as bad as any of the fundamentalist sects to have fed you this information! It is never too late to reject false ideologies though.

God bless and guide you towards Truth.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Tomdstone and LongingSoul…
Thank you for your kind words! Don’t feel awful for me. I was in a relationship once, and it failed. I won’t go into the details, but I posted vaguely about it in another thread a while ago. It had to do with a medical condition. Besides which, my doctor has always told me I’m too small and carrying children would not be a good idea. In cases, I feel there should be exceptions for the health of the woman. I don’t at all believe in abortion. No, no, no:nope: But I do feel a woman has a right to be able to control whether or not she becomes pregnant. In a moral way, of course. Even surgery, if having a baby would kill her. I feel, in cases where the woman just could not healthily carry a child, she and her husband could talk to a priest about what to do to more ensure that she will not get pregnant. Isn’t it only fair?

 

[Xantippe]

Tomdstone and LongingSoul…
Thank you for your kind words! Don’t feel awful for me. I was in a relationship once, and it failed. I won’t go into the details, but I posted vaguely about it in another thread a while ago. It had to do with a medical condition. Besides which, my doctor has always told me I’m too small and carrying children would not be a good idea. In cases, I feel there should be exceptions for the health of the woman. I don’t at all believe in abortion. No, no, no:nope: But I do feel a woman has a right to be able to control whether or not she becomes pregnant. In a moral way, of course. Even surgery, if having a baby would kill her. I feel, in cases where the woman just could not healthily carry a child, she and her husband could talk to a priest about what to do to more ensure that she will not get pregnant. Isn’t it only fair?

You know, if you have concerns about size, online dating could be a godsend. You could set your settings for short men, which could reduce the chance of a megababy.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

You know, if you have concerns about size, online dating could be a godsend. You could set your settings for short men, which could reduce the chance of a megababy.

That’s not what I meant. I’m small as in very thin. And I’m not looking for anyone. Sorry.

 

[Rau]

Tomdstone and LongingSoul…
Thank you for your kind words! Don’t feel awful for me. I was in a relationship once, and it failed. I won’t go into the details, but I posted vaguely about it in another thread a while ago. It had to do with a medical condition. Besides which, my doctor has always told me I’m too small and carrying children would not be a good idea. In cases, I feel there should be exceptions for the health of the woman. I don’t at all believe in abortion. No, no, no:nope: But I do feel a woman has a right to be able to control whether or not she becomes pregnant. In a moral way, of course. Even surgery, if having a baby would kill her. I feel, in cases where the woman just could not healthily carry a child, she and her husband could talk to a priest about what to do to more ensure that she will not get pregnant. Isn’t it only fair?

I can sympathise with your ending sentiments above, but much in life seems unfair. One is pretty, one is not so much. One has good educational and job opportunities, another does not. One inherits money, another loses what they have in a failed venture. One cannot conceive at all, for another it is easy. One longs for but does not find a spouse, while their friends do. How should all these realities be made “fair”.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

You know, if you have concerns about size, online dating could be a godsend. You could set your settings for short men, which could reduce the chance of a megababy.

I can’t get over this remark. I really just can’t. What would you know of my situation, anyhow?

 

[Rau]

I can’t get over this remark. I really just can’t. What would you know of my situation, anyhow?

I thought it might have been an attempt at humour that misfired!

Personally, I’ve not heard of unmarried women being advised to not get pregnant because they are small/ slim etc.; perhaps there is a particular medical scenario(s) where this arises.

 

[Ejperchenough]

You know, if you have concerns about size, online dating could be a godsend. You could set your settings for short men, which could reduce the chance of a megababy.

Not if one develops ‘hard to control’ gestational diabetes. That is if you are serious about this comment.

 

[Xantippe]

Crown of Stars,

You said you were small and concerned that you couldn’t have a baby.

I guessed (perhaps incorrectly) that you meant that you have a particularly small pelvis and were concerned about the possibility of a large baby not being able to get out.

One of my grandmas is physically tiny and had first a successful delivery, then a large baby that practically killed her (LOTS of tearing), and then a c-section for her last child. She to this day thinks that c-sections are the best thing ever and wonders why more women don’t get them.

And also in my family, there’s a tiny auntie that has only delivered via c-section. Our family produces HUGE babies–my last one was over 4 kg, and my middle child was 4.5kg–lots of 4.5 kg babies in the family. That’s why I immediately jumped to the tiny woman/huge baby assumption–because it’s so common in my family.

Some women cannot deliver vaginally, in which case a limited and well spaced out number of c-sections is a reasonable child-bearing plan.

As to what I know and don’t know about your situation, I know whatever you choose to tell us.